I'd like to see WWE go back to simply doing 12 pay-per-views a month year and returning to names like Backlash, Judgment Day, No Mercy, Armageddon and so on, but it probably won't happen. I imagine they figure that hardcore fans will buy all three, average fans'll buy two and casuals might buy one. Either way it's more money for them. In theory.

EDIT: Bleh, year, not month.

(edited by ekedolphin on 2.9.10 1605)"Say, the next time you want to win your daughter back, you could just try giving her a pony, the apocalypse doesn’t really cut it!"--The Prince, Prince of Persia (2008)

Don't most people who watch these shows just download them anyway? I mean, there are entire sites dedicated to assisting one in that pursuit (which of course I won't name), as there are for movies/tv/etc. I haven't seen a PPV I think would have been worth paying money for since probably the Night of Champions where Jeff beat Punk...I'm not encouraging the practice, mind, but me personally, I look at it like music in that I'm only paying for historical/huge event quality stuff.

Same for UFC. I just go to a bar to see it, I would never actually pay for it.

I always thought that it would be interesting to go to simply four pay-per-views a year, quarterly (obviously Wrestlemania, Summerslam, and two others).

This way you can really build up the events to be something special that will make people feel like they HAVE to go and pay to get them (as opposed to having it saturated with about 24 events a year (counting WWE and TNA).

With the quarterly pay-per-view method, you'd get the added bonus of actually having long title reigns once more, too.

WWE will never go back to the four-PPVs-per-year model. They make way, way more money from running 12-15 PPVs per year. Even a built-up, promoted PPV (so basically, a Wrestlemania) four times a year equals roughly 3.6 million buys. 12-15 PPVs per year equals about 900K buys for Wrestlemania, and the other 11-14 easily top 2.7 million buys overall.